Drive-By Shootings

Guide No. 47 (2007) by

The Problem of Drive-By Shootings

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide begins by
describing the problem of drive-by shootings and reviewing factors that
increase its risks. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze
your local drive-by shootings problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the
problem and what is known about them from evaluative research and police
practice.

Drive-by shootings are but one aspect of the larger set of
problems related to gang and gun violence. This guide is limited to addressing
the particular harms drive-by shootings cause. Related problems not directly
addressed in this guide, each of which requires separate analysis, include

gun trafficking and availability,

gun possession,

general gun violence by adult and juvenile offenders,

drug markets,

gang violence,

road rage,

assaults in and around bars, and

witness intimidation.

Some of these related crime problems are covered in other
guides in this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide.Problem Description

A drive-by shooting refers to an incident when someone fires
a gun from a vehicle at another vehicle, a person, a structure, or another stationary
object. Drive-by shootings are a subset of more general gun violence and are
less common than incidents in which someone approaches another on foot and
fires at him or her.† Many drive-by shootings involve multiple suspects and multiple victims. Using a
vehicle allows the shooter to approach the intended target without being
noticed and then to speed away before anyone reacts. The vehicle also offers
some protection in the case of return fire. In some situations, drive-by
shootings are gang-related; in others, they are the result of road rage or personal
disputes between neighbors, acquaintances, or strangers and are not related to
gang membership. Non-gang-related drive-by shootings are not well researched,
but journalistic accounts and police reports suggest that these constitute a
significant proportion of the drive-by shootings to which police respond. Because
of their prevalence, they are included in this guide, despite the dearth of
research about their motivations and the lack of evaluative research showing
which responses are most effective with this type of drive-by shooting. Even if
a drive-by shooting problem is not patently gang-related, some of what is known
about gang-related shootings may inform responses to other kinds of drive-by
shootings.

† Gun violence perpetrated by other means is far more prevalent than gun violence
facilitated by vehicle use. For example, in West Oakland, Calif., offenders
were 10 times more likely to walk up to the intended victim and shoot him or
her than to use a vehicle to facilitate the attack (Wilson and Riley 2004).
Similarly, an analysis of San Diego homicides from 1999 through 2003 revealed
that drive-by shootings accounted for about 10 percent of all of them (Wilson
et al 2004).

Although some drive-by shootings result in the victim’s
death, many result in nonfatal injuries to the intended victim or innocent
bystanders.† Whether the shooting is lethal depends less on the intent of the offender and
more on the location of the wound and the speed of medical attention.1 The intended targets may be slow to mobilize in the face of an unanticipated
attack, and their reactions may be delayed by drugs or alcohol.2 The specifics of a drive-by shooting–in which the shooter is aiming a gun out the
window of a moving vehicle at a moving target, and is often inexperienced in
handling a gun–mean that shots often go wild and injure people or damage
property that was not the intended target.3,† Deaths of innocent bystanders often receive significant media attention and
result in passionate public outcry, particularly when the victim is extremely
young, has a debilitating medical condition, or was shot while inside a
supposedly “safe” structure, such as their home or place of worship.4

† For example, in Los Angeles, of over 2,000 victims of drive-by shootings in
1991, only 5 percent were fatally injured. Over half sustained a gunshot wound
to the leg (Hutson, Anglin, and Eckstein 1996; Hutson, Anglin, and Pratts
1994).

† One study of Los Angeles drive-by shootings in the early 1990s found that the
proportion of those injured in drive-by shootings who were innocent bystanders
ranged between 38 to 59 percent each year (Hutson, Anglin, and Eckstein 1996).

There are no national data on the volume of drive-by
shootings. National statistical databases such as the Uniform Crime Reports
record the outcome (e.g., homicide, aggravated assault, weapons law violations)
rather than the method (i.e., drive-by shooting). Local data on the scope of
the problem are sometimes generated for the purposes of conducting research,
but generally are not available on a consistent basis so that long-term trends
can be tracked. What data are available suggest that large metropolitan cities
with entrenched gang problems are more likely to be challenged by drive-by
shootings than smaller suburban or rural jurisdictions. While smaller jurisdictions
may have isolated drive-by shooting incidents stemming from a dispute between
neighbors or customers at a bar or nightclub, they do not face the problems of
retaliatory gang violence that characterizes the problem in large cities.

In these cities, an individual drive-by shooting is often
one in a series of confrontations between street gangs with ongoing tensions.5 Attacks are followed by reprisals, which are followed by counterattacks. As a
result, the same individual may come to the attention of police as a
perpetrator, victim, and witness.6 Police often receive very limited information from witnesses because most drive-by
shootings occur at night, happen very quickly and thus are very chaotic, and occur
in neighborhoods in which gang members intimidate residents, some of whom
distrust the police.

Factors Contributing to Drive–by Shootings

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem
will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good
effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select
appropriate responses.

Gang Membership †

† Police departments use different thresholds in determining whether an event is
“gang–related.” The Los Angeles Police Department applies the label if the
victim or offender is a known gang member. In Chicago, however, the event must
exhibit a gang–related motive such as retaliation, initiation, or turf defense.
Mere membership is not sufficient for the “gang–related” classification
(Rosenfeld, Bray, and Egley 1999; Block and Block 1993 [PDF]).

Although gang membership is certainly not a prerequisite to
being involved in a drive–by shooting, studies have shown that larger
proportions of gang members reported being involved in drive–by shootings than
at–risk youth who were not gang–involved.7 While approximately equal proportions of males and females reported taking part
in drive–by shootings, females were less likely to admit to having actually
shot anyone, which suggests that their role in the event may have been minor or
secondary.

Gang membership may facilitate involvement in drive–by
shootings by placing members in risky situations–ones in which guns are present
and behavioral norms often include violence.8 Gang members are more likely than nongang members to own guns for protection,
are more likely to have friends who own guns for protection, and are more
likely to carry guns when outside the home.9 Further,
while not all gang members engage in drive–by shootings, those who do
are often attracted by the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty and enhance
their group status.10

Motivations

Depending on whether the drive–by shooting is gang–related
or not, motivations differ. Those that are gang–involved tend to be motivated
by mutual antagonism with rival gang members, disputes over territory or turf,
a desire to show fearlessness or loyalty to the group, an effort to promote one’s
social status or self–image, or retaliation against real or perceived disrespect
or insults.11 The desire for excitement can provide momentum for the event, making the
participants restless and unruly.12 Sometimes, those involved in drive–by shootings use drugs and alcohol to
rationalize their actions.

Disputes among drug dealers may also provide the motivation
for drive–by shootings. Gang members and those involved in drug enterprises tend
not to rely on the formal criminal justice system to resolve their disputes.
Instead, they respond with their own forms of justice, often violent, to punish
others for perceived wrongs and to deter future aggression.13 Drive–by shootings are one way in which gang members and other street criminals
exact revenge and enhance their status. These conflicts build and retaliation
tends to lead to counter–retaliation, with each side believing they are acting
in self–defense.14

Drive–by shootings that are not gang– or drug–motivated tend
to occur in reaction to disputes among neighbors or acquaintances, or as an
escalation of altercations that may have begun in a bar, restaurant, or
nightclub. Obviously, not all disputes or tensions escalate to the point of
violence, and research has not yet demonstrated what distinguishes those events
that do from those that do not. At the most basic level, the aggressors must
have access to both a vehicle and a gun, but beyond that, these events appear
to be rather unpredictable. Newspapers are replete with accounts of incidents
with unclear motivations involving shots fired from a vehicle at another
vehicle, stationary target, person, or group of people.

Drive–by shootings that occur as an extreme form of road
rage often occur in reaction to seemingly trivial events (e.g., another driver
is driving “too slow,” won’t let another driver pass, is tailgating, fails to
signal before turning). While triggered by these events, the underlying
motivation usually appears to be a series of unrelated stressors in the perpetrator’s
life.15 The protection, anonymity, sense of power, and ease of escape provided by the
vehicle lead some motorists to feel safe expressing their hostility toward
other drivers.16

Vehicle and Gun Availability

A drive–by shooting’s prerequisites include access to a
vehicle and a gun. Those who carry out drive–by shootings may use their own
vehicle or one that has been borrowed, rented, or stolen. Because many drive–by
shootings occur at night, dependable descriptions of the vehicle involved may
be difficult to obtain.

When gun ownership is more prevalent, the risk of drive–by
shootings increases as well. Although both juveniles and adults participate in them,
most research on drive–by shootings has focused on the prevalence of gun
ownership among adolescents. Substantial numbers of adolescents have owned guns
at some point in their lives, although their ownership tends to be sporadic.17 In recent years, as gun possession among juveniles has become more widespread,
the threshold for using guns to resolve conflicts appears to have lowered.18 Surveys of juvenile offenders have shown that over half obtained their first gun
without a specific plan to do so; rather, they reported finding the gun or said
a peer, sibling, or other relative gave it to them to use for self–protection.19 Those who carry guns for protection may be resistant to voluntarily forfeiting
their weapons, as they fear harm from peers or rival gang members more than
they fear legal sanctions.20

It is not so much the number of guns in circulation, but
rather the number of people carrying them in high–risk places and at high–risk
times that creates the potential for a drive–by shooting.21 Further, the number of events in which guns are actually used is only a
fraction of the times in which guns are present.22 As a result, it is important to know the times and places in which guns are
present, and the factors that contribute to their use.

Times and Locations

Many drive–by shootings occur under the cover of darkness,
either to help the shooters avoid detection or because the precipitating events
occur at night.23 Gang members tend to target rival groups at parties or lingering on the street.
Not only do these people have little time to react, but also the offenders can
boast about carrying out the shooting when they were vastly outnumbered.24

Wide open streets are often chosen as the preferred venue
because they allow the shooters to approach without detection and to escape
unhindered. Proximity to major roadways may facilitate access to and from the
shooting location.25 Targets may include people on the street, those in vehicles that are stopped at
a light or parked, and those who are inside their homes.26 Drive–by shootings that occur as an extreme form of road rage appear to be
rather unpredictable in terms of the times and locations where they occur. Understanding Your Local
Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized
description of drive–by shootings. You must combine these basic facts with a
more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem
carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description of drive-by shootings. You must combine these basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following
groups have an interest in the drive-by shooting problem and should be
considered for the contribution they might make to gathering information about
the problem, and responding to it:

local hospitals and emergency services;

city public works agencies (e.g., parking, streets, transportation,
utilities);

corrections departments (particularly those with reentry programs
that monitor offenders’ return to the streets and their impact on the
community);

bar and nightclub owners and managers;

social service providers;

gang members and members of other neighborhood “groups”; and

neighborhood associations.Asking the Right Questions

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask when
analyzing your particular problem of drive-by shootings, even if the answers
are not always readily available.†Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most
appropriate set of responses later on.

† The analysis phase of problem-oriented responses to gun violence has
historically been weak. See Braga (2005) for guidance on making the analysis
phase more robust.

Incidents and Motivations

How many drive-by shootings have occurred?

What proportion of the incidents appear to have arisen from
spontaneous arguments or interpersonal conflicts?

What proportion of the incidents appear to be connected to known
tensions or rivalries among local gangs?

What proportion of the incidents appear to be drug-related?

What proportion of the incidents appear to be retaliatory?

What other motivations for the incidents can you identify?

Did anyone other than the victim witness the incidents?

How did you identify the witnesses?

Of what quality was the information obtained from witnesses? If poor, what interfered with the ability to get useful information from them?

Victims

What were the characteristics of drive-by shooting victims (e.g.,
gender, age, race, or ethnicity)?

Did the victims have any connections to or ongoing conflicts with
the offenders? Or did they appear to be innocent bystanders?

Were the victims gang-affiliated? Were they involved in the drug
trade? Were they armed when the shooting occurred?

Did the victims or bystanders return fire?

What were the victims doing just before the shooting? Were they
alone or with others?

How did the victims arrive at the shooting location?

Were the victims under the influence of drugs or alcohol during
the shooting?

What was the extent of the injuries sustained? How quickly was
medical attention obtained?

What were the characteristics of nonperson targets (e.g., car,
house, other structure)? Why were these targets selected? Where there any
characteristics making them vulnerable to attack?

Offenders

What were the offenders’ characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race,
or ethnicity)?

Did they have previous involvement with the criminal justice
system? Were they currently under some form of criminal justice supervision
that could be leveraged?

Were the offenders gang-affiliated? Were they involved in the
drug trade?

Were the offenders under the influence of drugs or alcohol during
the shooting?

Did they target the victims specifically, or did they select them
randomly?

What type of gun was used, and how was it obtained? What happened
to the gun after the shooting?

Why was the offender carrying the gun at that time?

What were the reasons offenders offered for owning a gun? Under
what conditions might they be convinced to relinquish them?

Whose vehicle was used? Was it owned, borrowed, rented, or
stolen?

How many other people were in the car during the shooting? What
were their roles in the incident? How did they facilitate or discourage the
offender from shooting?

Was anyone in the vehicle injured? What was the extent of injury?
How quickly was medical attention obtained?

Locations and Times

Where do drive-by shootings occur? Are they concentrated in any
identifiable patterns?

What are these hotspots characteristics? Are they clustered near
main thoroughfares? Businesses (e.g., bars and night clubs)? Other places where
people congregate (e.g., residential parties, liquor stores, illegal gambling
houses)? Do they provide for easy access and escape?

Are there features of the immediate environment that shield the
offenders from view (e.g., poor lighting, overgrown vegetation) or that
otherwise make the location attractive? Are there any physical barriers at
other locations that appear to prevent the problem?

Do other types of crime affect the area?

What times of the day and days of the week do drive-by shootings
occur?

Are there other features of the environment that are connected to
these times and days (e.g., bar closing times)? Which of these could be
strategically modified?

Current Responses

How are intergang tensions currently monitored? Has your
department made any efforts toward mediation? Which of these were successful?

Are any controllers–i.e., people who could prevent the offenders
from causing harm–available?

How do bars and nightclubs monitor and try to defuse
interpersonal conflicts on their premises? How could the managers of these
places be engaged?

Does traffic congestion or the physical condition of roads appear
to contribute to road rage? How could these be modified?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts
have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are
not producing the intended results. You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. All measures
should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding area. For more
detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the Problem-Solving Tools Guide, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police
Problem-Solvers.

The following are potentially useful measures of the
effectiveness of responses to drive-by shootings. Process-related measures
identify whether responses have been implemented as designed. These include

increases in the number of searches for illegal guns conducted in
high-risk places;

increases in the number of guns seized, followed by a reduction
in the number of guns seized;

increases in the number of intergang disputes that are mediated
and settled without violence;

reductions in the number of instances in which gun owners rearm
themselves after seizure;

increases in the number of bars and nightclubs that enact
violence prevention measures;

improved witness cooperation with investigations of drive-by
shootings; and

increases in perceptions of safety among residents and local
merchants.

Outcome-related measures are used to determine whether
responses have reduced the size or scope of the problem. These include

reductions in the number of drive-by shooting incidents;

absence of displacement to other locations;

reductions in the number of victims of drive-by shootings;

reductions in the number of stationary targets (e.g., structures,
vehicles) damaged by drive-by shootings;

reductions in the severity of injuries victims sustain; and

reductions in the number of nonfatal and fatal injuries victims
sustain.

Responses to the Problem of Drive-by Shootings

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better
understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your
local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you
should consider possible responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of
ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a
variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may
apply to your community’s problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to
local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable
analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing
several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom
effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering
what police can do: carefully consider who in your community shares
responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. The
responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need to be shifted toward
those who have the capacity to implement more effective responses.
(For more
detailed information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide
No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems).

As discussed in the previous sections, while drive-by
shootings are often gang-related, they are also carried out by people who are
not affiliated with gangs and who execute a drive–by shooting during the course
of interpersonal conflict. These incidents are both random and unpredictable
and do not lend themselves well to a problem–oriented response strategy.
Therefore, most of the responses discussed below address those drive-by
shootings carried out by gang members.

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

Focusing on proximate causes. Given the complexity of factors
driving gang membership, interpersonal violence, the facilitating influence of
alcohol and drugs, and other motivations for drive-by shootings, police often
feel overwhelmed by the prospect of addressing these root causes. A problem-focused
approach suggests focusing on proximate causes, namely addressing those factors
that make the drive-by shooting easier to carry out. For example, decreasing
offenders’ mobility in traveling to and from the targeted location or reducing
the availability of weapons used to carry out drive-by shootings, while not
addressing the underlying motivation, can frustrate the offenders’ intention
and result in a reduction of the problem.27

Targeting the activity, not the individual. One of the criticisms
of civil gang injunctions and other measures that target individual group
members is that they can inadvertently increase group cohesiveness.28 By focusing on the activity (i.e., drive-by shootings) rather than the
individual’s gang membership, police can avoid conferring additional status on
gang membership. Further, community relationships are often strained by the
community’s perception that police are focusing unfairly on underprivileged minorities.
By remaining focused on the harm caused, rather than group membership, police
can reinforce their fair and unbiased approach to crime prevention.29 Many of the specific responses to drive-by shootings, discussed below, take
this approach.

Understanding gang membership dynamics. Although not all drive-by
shootings are carried out by gang members, a large proportion are motivated by
the desire to join a gang, enhance one’s status, satisfy peer expectations, establish
dominance, or exact revenge in the gang’s name. Knowledge of local gang
dynamics, affiliations, rivalries, and tensions is essential to be able to
understand and intervene effectively in the drive-by shooting problem.30 Specific Responses To Reduce Drive-by Shootings

Reducing Weapon Availability or Prevalence †

† Responses that intensify enforcement activities, target high-risk offenders, or
obtain consent to search private property must be supported by precise
documentation that will protect the department from alleged civil rights
violations if challenged in court.

Conducting crackdowns. Enhancing police visibility and intensifying
enforcement actions can effectively reduce the number of weapons available for
use in drive-by shootings and other forms of violence.31 This response is also commonly referred to as directed patrol, saturation
patrol, and proactive patrol.†After
deploying additional officers to a specific geographic area (i.e., “saturating”
the area), police are directed to stop people for any offense in which probable
cause exists (i.e., “directed” patrol). Most often, motorists are stopped for
traffic violations to ascertain whether the person has a weapon and whether it
can be seized legally.†Focusing
on specific people exhibiting suspicious behaviors can yield a greater number
of weapons and arrests than a general strategy that does not target high-risk people
or specific behaviors.32

Police can also set up roadblocks or checkpoints to identify
and confiscate illegal weapons.†A
careful strategy should be developed to avoid claims of unlawful searches or racial
profiling.33 In addition, police should try to minimize the inconvenience to law-abiding
residents. Police should meet with residents and community group leaders to
explain the initiative and gain their support before implementation.34 Further, officers should be trained to treat residents with respect and to
clearly explain the reason for their being stopped. Community support is also
vital, and thus police should meet with community leaders, businesspeople and
residents whom crackdown activities will affect. One benefit to this approach
is that crackdowns and checkpoints do not require complex coordination with
other agencies and therefore can be implemented relatively quickly.

† Crawford (1998) [PDF]offers several recommendations for ensuring that checkpoints do not raise Fourth Amendment concerns. Among them: the purpose of the checkpoint must clearly advance the public’s interest in resolving a serious community problem; residents should be given advanced notice and signs should be posted; officers must give clearly worded explanations for the stop and should limit its duration; all cars should be stopped to diminish fear or surprise; searches should not be conducted unless the situation gives rise to one of the search warrant exceptions; and legal consult should be sought before implementation.

Initiating “sweeps” targeting known offenders. In addition to
implementing crackdowns at high-risk locations, police can also target
high-risk people using “sweeps.” In cooperation with probation and probation
agencies, police can identify people already under criminal justice supervision
who have a high propensity for gun violence.35 Using the probation’s search provisions and parole agreements, teams of police
and probation and parole officers can search offenders’ residences, vehicles,
and persons and confiscate any illegal weapons found.36 Not only can sweeps be carried out swiftly, but also they can have a rather
immediate impact on the gun violence level, although these reductions may be
hard to sustain over time. Further, these searches can be perceived as
harassment of offenders who are complying with their supervision’s conditions.

Obtaining consent to search for and seize weapons. Parents of
at-risk youth may be willing to allow police to enter their homes to search for
and confiscate weapons.37 Locations likely to yield weapons can be identified through citizen information
or from reports from other police units. Permission for the search is granted
in exchange for a promise from police that neither the parents nor the youth
will be charged or prosecuted if any weapons are found. Once the purpose of the
search is explained and permission is granted, the responsible adult at the
location should sign a consent form.† “Consent to Search” programs are most effective when community expertise is
engaged to identify locations, and when the police department places an
absolute priority on seizing guns rather than prosecuting those who have them.38

† In St. Louis, Mo., the Consent to Search program yielded a high cooperation level (98 percent of those approached gave consent for their homes to be searched) and a high gun volume (guns were seized in half the homes searched, totaling 402 guns in the first year) (Decker and Rosenfeld 2004). Also, see Rosenfeld and Decker (1996) for a sample consent form.

Identifying Situations With the Potential for Violence

Tracking current tensions and past altercations. Although
some drive-by shootings occur spontaneously, many are catalyzed by past
altercations and ongoing tensions between individuals or among rival gang
members. Some bars and nightclubs have regular customers who may clash with
other peer group members; gangs involved in the drug trade may have ongoing
disputes over territory or may try to gain control of a certain segment of the
drug market; more general gang rivalries may escalate into lethal violence.
Most drive-by shootings are not isolated events, but rather are one in a series
of confrontations. Specialized gang units can be an excellent source of
intelligence on the alliances, rivalries, and ongoing tensions among local gang
members, but this information must be shared freely with those addressing the drive-by
shooting problem.39 For those incidents that are instigated at a bar or nightclub, police can work
with owners and managers to identify and intervene in those tensions with a
potential for escalation.† A targeted response requires knowledge about the specific people’s activities,
as well as the ongoing conflicts and alliances among other groups and gangs.40 This information can also be passed on to mediators in an effort to prevent
lethal violence.†

† See the POP Guide titled Assaults in and Around Bars (Scott and Dedel 2006) for ideas on how lower-level tensions can be dissipated before they escalate into gun violence.

† Successful mediation of gang conflicts requires an awareness of the forces that can deter members from participating, and the needs and interests that must be satisfied once they agree to mediation. Jones (2002) identifies the following essential elements: 1) developing personal, positive, and trusting relationships between gang members and mediators; 2) offering “excuses” for participating in mediation that allow gang members to “save face”; 3) showing respect for the gang members and their conflict through the formality of the process and by requiring each side to listen to the other; and 4) personalizing members of each gang so that the hostility originating from group membership is less potent.

Coordinating with hospitals. Drive-by shooting victims may
not be identified by police and may seek medical attention on their own. When
hospital emergency rooms notify police of all patients seeking treatment for
gunshot wounds, police may be able to identify and intervene in situations with
a potential for retaliation and escalating violence.†

† The National Violent Injury Statistics System at the Harvard School of Public Health is a national reporting system for gun-related injuries involving collaborations between the public health community and police. More information is available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nviss/index.htm. The San Antonio (Texas) Police Department developed a “Cops and Docs” program to foster two-way communication between police and emergency medical services. When a shooting occurs and the police do not identify the victim, an alert is sent to the hospital with a description and the suspected injury’s location. Conversely, when a gunshot victim seeks medical attention, the emergency room staff fax an injury report to police (David 1997 [PDF]).

Prohibiting high-risk people from riding in cars with each other. If police can identify gang members likely to be involved in drive-by
shootings, they can use a variety of legal strategies to prohibit their riding
in cars with each other. For example, such restrictions could be part of
probation or parole conditions, or could be specified in a civil gang
injunction. Assuming police are notified when the people violate these
conditions, the violation could be sufficient probable cause for an arrest,
possibly intercepting a planned shooting.

Civil gang injunctions have been used to combat gangs in
several jurisdictions in southern California and Texas. In collaboration with
prosecutors, police gather evidence that individual gang members represent a
public nuisance. This evidence can include the people’s criminal histories,
community police officers’ statements, or residents’ statements. The injunction
prohibits named people from participating in specific activities (e.g.,
associating with other gang members, loitering in parks, carrying pagers);
violations are grounds for arrest. Research on the injunctions’ effectiveness
is somewhat limited and has shown mixed results, but some jurisdictions have
found them to result in decreased visibility of gang members, fewer episodes of
gang intimidation, and reduced fear of crime among residents.41

Making Environmental Changes

Closing streets. When drive-by shootings are concentrated in
a specific geographic area, closing streets that provide access to the
neighborhood can reduce the ability of potential offenders to carry out drive-by
shootings.†

† The Los Angeles Police Department determined that drive-by shootings were clustered on the periphery of a specific neighborhood, which was linked to major thoroughfares. They erected barriers to block the major roads leading to and from the neighborhood and supplemented them with high-visibility foot, bicycle, and horseback patrols. An immediate reduction in serious crime (e.g., homicides and drive-by shootings) was evident (Lasley 1998 [PDF]).

These closures block entry points and escape routes, forcing offenders to take a more
circuitous route to their destination and often requiring them to backtrack to
leave the area. The specific architecture of the closures should specify which
streets will be closed, how they will be closed, how they will be supported by
patrol, how they will be monitored, and when or whether to remove the barriers.† Traffic flow is a key consideration: traffic should be routed into streets
that offer the lowest opportunities for drive-by shooting and other crime
(e.g., avoiding gang members’ hangouts; focusing on routes bordered by open
areas where the line of sight is unobstructed).42 This response is most effective when offenders are from outside of the target
area, which can be difficult to ascertain given the complexity of gang turf
boundaries. Given the impact of street closures on the residents’ normal daily
activities, a wide range of stakeholder concerns must be addressed before
implementation.43 Coordinating with first responders–firefighters, EMT’s, ambulance drivers, etc.–is essential to ensure their safe and efficient passage.

Deploying response teams. The crime scenes of drive-by
shootings often disintegrate rapidly as physical evidence is destroyed,
witnesses leave the scene, and recollections of what occurred are influenced by
discussions among witnesses and neighbors. Responding effectively to drive-by
shootings not only increases the chances that those responsible will be
charged, but also offers an opportunity to intercept plans for retaliation as
they are created. Some jurisdictions immediately deploy specially trained
response teams to freeze the scene, preserve physical evidence, and ensure that
witnesses remain present for questioning and are kept separate from one
another.† These teams develop high-level expertise in local gang dynamics and, with the
continuity provided by a permanent assignment, can identify patterns among
seemingly unrelated events.44

† The El Paso (Texas) Police Department’s Response Team noted improved
cooperation from witnesses and an increase in the number of cases cleared.
Arrests were made within 24 hours in approximately 90 percent of shootings. In
addition, the number of drive-by shootings decreased over time (El Paso Police
Department 2002 [PDF]).

Creating witness incentives. Victims and other citizens who
witness drive-by shootings are often reluctant to provide information to
police. This reluctance may stem from a fear of reprisal, from general
community norms discouraging cooperation with police, or from some planning
among themselves for retaliation for the shooting.45 Minimizing the risks witnesses who want to cooperate face, strengthening ties
with the community, and offering support in the form of financial assistance
and temporary relocation can encourage those with information to come forward.† Improving the quality of information from witnesses helps police to identify
offenders and to intervene in plans for retaliation.

Implementing a “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategy.
Significant decreases in the rate of gun violence have been noted by several
jurisdictions that have implemented a “pulling levers” focused deterrence
response.†,46Targeting
gang members with chronic involvement in serious crime, an interagency working
group composed of police, prosecutors, and social service providers, among
others, convenes groups of offenders, sets clear standards for their behavior
(e.g., cease involvement in gun violence), and reinforces the message by
“pulling every lever available” when standards are violated. The consequences
for continued involvement in gun violence are specifically expressed, and
pro-social alternatives (e.g., education and employment opportunities, drug
treatment) are made available. If members of the target group are involved in
gun violence, all of the members of the group are subjected to intensified
supervision and other forms of enhanced enforcement. On-going communication
with the targeted group makes a definitive connection between their involvement
in gun violence and the consequences imposed. Responses With Limited Effectiveness

Targeting gun traffickers. As part of a comprehensive
response strategy, some jurisdictions try to reduce gun violence by targeting gun
traffickers. Any effort to restrict the flow of guns into a community is
generally a good idea, although such broad efforts are unlikely to have a
demonstrable effect on a localized problem. The effectiveness of this response
is limited by the fact that many people get their guns informally, from friends
and relatives, rather than buying them from a dealer.47 However, if the problem analysis demonstrates that straw purchasers are
bringing large numbers of guns into the community, a response targeting these people
would certainly be reasonable.

Implementing “gun buyback” programs. Some jurisdictions try
to reduce gun violence by trying to reduce the number of people who own guns.
Gun owners, under the promise of amnesty or anonymity, exchange their guns for
money, goods, or services. While a significant number of guns may be taken off
the street this way, research has shown that “gun buyback” programs do not
target the guns that are most likely to be used in drive-by shootings and other
violent crimes.48

Teaching conflict resolution skills. While conflict
resolution skills curricula are a part of effective gang prevention programs (e.g.,
Gang Resistance Education and Training), their usefulness is more limited with people
who are already affiliated with gangs and deeply involved in the conflicts that
lead to gun violence. The curricula’s limitations derive from the fact that the
skills are taught out of context. The classroom setting does not mimic the
typical situation in which violence unfolds–one with high levels of emotional
arousal, the presence of drugs and alcohol, and other factors that alter the
cognitive state of those involved.49

Restricting entry to high-risk neighborhoods. If the drive-by
shooting problem is severe and confined to a small area, the neighborhood could
be cordoned off and all vehicles trying to enter the area could be screened,
allowing entry only to residents and people with legitimate business in the
area. While this response would deny access to those intending to do harm to
residents, it is very obtrusive to residents and business owners and will likely
receive strong community opposition. Research on this response’s effectiveness
is quite limited, and it has raised serious Fourth Amendment concerns that must
be addressed.†

† In 1992, the New York Police Department cordoned off an eight-block area of the
Bronx, denying access to all motorists except residents, commercial vehicle
drivers, those dropping off children, and those visiting church. Others wishing
to enter the area were allowed to park and travel within the boundaries on
foot. The checkpoint operated on a random schedule of six hours per day, three
days per week. This response’s effectiveness in reducing the volume of drive-by
shootings was not discussed in published research (Crawford 1998 [PDF]).

Impounding cars that are not properly registered. Similar to
a DUI checkpoint, police can stop all vehicles to determine whether the vehicle
is properly registered and the driver is appropriately licensed.50 If not, the car can be impounded for a short time, thus denying potential
offenders access to one of the needed tools for a drive-by shooting. Although
only one jurisdiction has published research reporting this response’s limited
effectiveness, like other responses in this section, the low yield of weapons
and inconvenience to residents suggest that it does not have sufficient power
to decrease the number of drive-by shootings substantially.

Summary of Responses to Drive-by Shootings

The table below summarizes the responses to drive-by
shootings, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions
under which they should work best, and some factors you should consider before
implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to
local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable
analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing
several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom
effective in reducing or solving the problem.

Incapacitating high-risk
offenders by removing tools used to commit violence

…high-risk offenders are
carefully targeted; offenders do not rearm themselves

Interagency collaboration
can be challenging; reductions are likely to be short term; can be difficult
to agree on most-high-risk offenders; can be perceived as harassing
offenders who are complying withsupervision conditions

Sends message that the
police and the community will not tolerate gun possession; incapacitates gun
owners by removing tools used to commit violence

…a low-key approach is
used; great care is taken to ensure that consent is truly voluntary; the department
places priority on reducing gun availability rather than prosecuting those
who have guns; the program is of sufficient size to ensure that the number
of weapons seized will affect the crime rate

Can aggravate some of the
conditions it is intended to alleviate (e.g., rebellion against parents);
youth may rearm themselves; will not reduce crimes adults commit

Allows police to identify
and intervene in situations with the potential for lethal violence

…information is properly
organized so patterns can be identified; local gang dynamics are understood;
skilled mediators are available

Need dependable sources of
intelligence; need to be able to respond immediately to crisis situations;
may legitimize gang membership; information needs to be continually updated;
can be difficult to sustain analysis

Allows police to intervene
in situations that could result in a drive-by shooting

...people likely to
participate in drive-by shootings can be identified; police are notified
when named people are seen in a car together

Injunctions have faced
First Amendment challenges for prohibiting otherwise legal activities;
injunctions are difficult and time-consuming to set up; probation and parole
conditions must be enforced to carry a deterrent value

Kennedy, D.,
A. Piehl, and A. Braga (1996). “Gun Buybacks: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We
Go?” In M. Plotkin (ed.), Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges, and Amnesty
Programs. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Maxson, C.
(1999). “Gang Homicide: A Review and Extension of the Literature.” In M. Smith
and M. Zahn (eds.), Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Maxson, C.,
K. Hennigan, D. Sloan, and K. Kolnick (2004). Can Civil Gang Injunctions
Change Communities? A Community Assessment of the Impact of Civil Gang
Injunctions. Irvine, California: University of California, School of Social Ecology. [Full text]

White, M., J.
Fyfe, S. Campbell, and J. Goldkamp (2003). “The Police Role in Preventing
Homicide: Considering the Impact of Problem-Oriented Policing on the Prevalence
of Murder.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(2):194–225.

Wilkinson,
D., and J. Fagan (2001). “What We Know About Gun Use Among Adolescents.”Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review 4(2):109–132.

––– (1996).
“The Role of Firearms in Violence â€˜Scripts’: The Dynamics of Gun Events Among
Adolescent Males.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59(1):55–90.

Related POP Projects

Important!

The quality and focus of these submissions vary considerably. With the
exception of those submissions selected as winners or finalists, these
documents are unedited and are reproduced in the condition in which
they were submitted. They may nevertheless contain useful information
or may report innovative projects.